Research Topics

Reasons I believe smoking should be banned in public facilities:
1.) Health of non-smokers
2.) Of smokers
3.) Cleaner and with less pollution in the air.

The Banning of Smoking: An Annotated Bibliography

Associated Press, The." Air quality better after smoking ban." Thursday, October 5, 2006 SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

In brief, the article is about how smoking bans have helped decrease air pollution by up to eighty-eight percent. It also says that due to the findings from the report the Initiative 901 was put into effect prohibiting smoking in restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, and most hotels. But the article lacks where this report was taken and who did the testing. Which causes some doubting as to how reliable the source maybe. Associated Press while supporting my idea does leaving some doubting into whether or not it can fully back up my idea.


Galloway, Angela. "Smoking ban expected to pass easily." Friday, October 14, 2005 SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

"Smoking bans" gives both sides of the banning. The article also says that the American Cancer Society is sponsoring the Initiative 901 for banning smoking in public places. It supports both the benefits of banning and some of the problems with banning. The article also has quotes from different people from both sides of the banning. One quoting how its a personal thing that we have the choice of whether or not we go into a place. While another said that it is the ultimate goal to making people quit by restricting where they can or cannot smoke. Overall, it is a very reliable source, even has a graph on which states have already passed the banning altogether to which ones have started, and which ones are not doing it at all. Galloway helps to support my idea while also give some incite on the other side of my argument.


Jama. "Reduced Secondhand Smoke Exposure After Implementation of a Comprehensive Statewide Smoking Ban."—New York, June 26, 2003–June 30, 2004

Jama describes how cotinine is used to see the level of secondhand smoking, during their study they tested the cotinine levels both before and after banning smoking to see if there was any decline or incline in the levels. And with the cotinine test they proved how banning smoking also decline the ex poser to secondhand smoke that causes cancer and premature diseases. Jama is a very good source they give who it was reported by, the editorial notes, acknowledgements, and references. Jama helps narrow my topic down by giving a health reason and backing it up in the process.

Opinion. Ban healthy for hospitals, careful consideration needed elsewhere. October 23,07

The Opinion simple states that there should be a ban around hospitals because some of the patients are vulnerable to secondhand smoke and its causes. And that there should be some enforcement on where it is already banned because in some places like colleges where they have the twenty foot from the door way are not enforced and therefore not followed. Though not a good source, does not explain why it should be banned or who is being protected other than patients. Opinion is also to broad and doesn't really support my idea.

Ramirez, Anthony. "Report says Smoking Ban Helps to Cut Heart Attacks". September 28, 2007 The New York Times

Ramirez reports how the banning of smoking helped to cut heart attacks by nearly four thousand people. And that while it cost $14,772 per heart-attack admission it cost almost nothing to put the ban on smoking. Ramirez's report shows how banning smoking can help save more lives from heart-attack and also to help save money too. And maybe a good article to have because it provides a good reason to ban smoking and it creditable by the source and it also gives past reports Ramirez has done. It also helps narrow my subject down to a health reason for banning. And supports my reason too.

Smoking ban

Why should they ban smoking? Who benefits smoking bans? Secondhand smoke good cause for banning. Lunge cancer another reason for banning.

1st posting

I need to pick a topic!